Muchmore

[John Dolva]

This'll possibly be a short lived topic as the moorman* film is so blurred. I thought it might be of interest to see the view from the other side. This is a composite of the film using the same technique as with the earlier zfilm topics.

It's harder to see from this angle but the car has reached a slowest point at about the time of the head shot. One thing of interest here is the movements of the family on the other side.The man seems quite agitated for most of the film. The child next to the man in white shirt in the foreground is also quite busy until just before the headshot when he seems to freeze into a position next to the man.

All, of the movements are consistent with the zfilm.

What is of interest here is also the SS mans sprint to the Limousine. I'll endeavour to separate them out and present. Many frames are very blurred.

*names have never been a strong point for me

To save attachment space see later postfor images

Edited August 11, 2005 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

This'll possibly be a short lived topic as the moorman* film is so blurred. I thought it might be of interest to see the view from the other side. This is a composite of the film using the same technique as with the earlier zfilm topics.

It's harder to see from this angle but the car has reached a slowest point at about the time of the head shot. One thing of interest here is the movements of the family on the other side.The man seems quite agitated for most of the film. The child next to the man in white shirt in the foreground is also quite busy until just before the headshot when he seems to freeze into a position next to the man.

All, of the movements are consistent with the zfilm.

What is of interest here is also the SS mans sprint to the Limousine. I'll endeavour to separate them out and present. Many frames are very blurred.

*names have never been a strong point for me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Moorman is a lady in the forground of your study - she took Polaroids, not film (motion). The most famous, Moorman5, alledged to have been taken at the same frame as Z-313 -the headshot, over the years various studies have been undertaken in determining the exact Z-frame as the Moorman5 photo. Results range from Z311-319. -- Yes, please isolate the SS agent...

DHealy

Edited August 10, 2005 by David G. Healy

[John Dolva]

Yes , thank you David, I'm not good with names. I've sent a message to John to rename topic.

Here's the guy running up behind.

to save attachment space see later post for images

Edited August 11, 2005 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

Yes , thank you David, I'm not good with names. I've sent a message to John to rename topic.

Here's the guy running up behind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

the final frame of this string cooresponds with what frame in the Z-film (z-3??), please?

Nice work, where'd you acquire the film clip used, btw!

David

Edited August 10, 2005 by David G. Healy

[John Dolva]

David, before really getting into all this a few months ago I grabbed as many bits from all over the net as I could. I think I have a copy (multiples) of most of the films). Exactly where from this one I can't say, this one and the Nix one I think I picked up early in the piece. Try a search, it probably isn't hard to find.

Exactly which frame I don't know. If someone else can say that would be good. If I work it out I'll post. Thank you for the encouragement. It'd be good if others tried also to do this if it's of interest. It's good to compare things.

[John Dolva]

The statement by Harry Holmes that there were early reports of gunfire from the Post Office may have its origins indicated by the following sequence that shows the three motor cycles. The rider on the cycle closest to the camera seems to crouch down or duck from about Moormans position, while the far rider stretches up his head and looks over the other riders to their left. Perhaps there is an internal report here that never reached the public?

to save attachment space see later post for images

Edited August 11, 2005 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

David, before really getting into all this a few months ago I grabbed as many bits from all over the net as I could. I think I have a copy (multiples) of most of the films). Exactly where from this one  I can't say, this one and the Nix one I think I picked up early in the piece. Try a search, it probably isn't hard to find.

Exactly which frame I don't know. If someone else can say that would be good. If I work it out I'll post.  Thank you for the encouragement. It'd be good if others tried also to do this if it's of interest. It's good to compare things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent find, this piece of film -- very, VERY clean background [north of Elm] Much cleaner than mine. Obvious professional color correction work performed!

thanks,

David

[John Dolva]

David, I'm surprised. No, it's a very dirty copy. When one puts two images that contain largely the same information on top of each other that which is the same will add and that which is different subtract. As the 'dirt' is different on all frames it quite logically disappears.

Now that I'm on the subject, this principle is useful in sifting through the 'smoke' in many fields. I hesitate to add this part, because I had hoped to demonstrate it vividly shortly, but the 'reverse' is also true. That which is the same is sometimes exactly that part not to look at. I call this for want of a better word 'difference analysis'.

The above technique will highlight that which stays the same. In turn it not only highlights that which is different but also that which is the inverse of same : change.

[John Dolva]

A Pleasant surprise:

I was curious to see what the surroundings look like to the above composite.

The Muchmore film and the bond photos 6 & 7 are taken almost from the exact same spot!

Here is the above composite superimposed on a composite of those two photos.

to save attachment space see later posts for images

Edited August 11, 2005 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

John Dolva wrote:

David, I'm surprised. No, it's a very dirty copy. When one puts two images that contain largely the same information on top of each other that which is the same will add and that which is different subtract. As the 'dirt' is different on all frames it quite logically disappears.

don't be

Now that I'm on the subject, this principle is useful in sifting through the 'smoke' in many fields. I hesitate to add this part, because I had hoped to demonstrate it vividly shortly, but the 'reverse' is also true. That which is the same is sometimes exactly that part not to look at. I call this for want of a better word 'difference analysis'.

kinda like that *difference* compositing filter in Photoshop, right?

The above technique will highlight that which stays the same. In turn it not only highlights that which is different but also that which is the inverse of same : change.

perhaps a future project will could be; ALL DPlaza motion films, isolating the LIMO, no need to be concerned with any other area -- referencing all non Z-film frames back to the Z-film...

Hate to see you stop after coming this far.......

David Healy

Edited August 10, 2005 by David G. Healy

[John Dolva]

John Dolva wrote:

David, I'm surprised. No, it's a very dirty copy. When one puts two images that contain largely the same information on top of each other that which is the same will add and that which is different subtract. As the 'dirt' is different on all frames it quite logically disappears.

don't be

Now that I'm on the subject, this principle is useful in sifting through the 'smoke' in many fields. I hesitate to add this part, because I had hoped to demonstrate it vividly shortly, but the 'reverse' is also true. That which is the same is sometimes exactly that part not to look at. I call this for want of a better word 'difference analysis'.

kinda like that  *difference* compositing filter in Photoshop, right?

The above technique will highlight that which stays the same. In turn it not only highlights that which is different but also that which is the inverse of same : change.

perhaps a future project will could be; ALL DPlaza motion films, isolating the LIMO, no need to be concerned with any other area -- referencing all non Z-film frames back to the Z-film...

Hate to see you stop after coming this far.......

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David, I don't know, I don't use photoshop. I don't think I quite understand your project. However I look forward to seeing your results, it sounds interesting.

[David G. Healy]

John wrote:

A Pleasant surprise:

I was curious to see what the surroundings look like to the above composite.

that's interesting, what frame [using the Z-film as reference] was the last image in your sequence again? I think I asked that someplace else

The Muchmore film

one, two, three.... thank you, Gary. LOL Don't forget the NIX film

and the bond photos 6 & 7 are taken almost from the exact same spot!

I'd be more comfortable saying: near the same POV, not spot -- I have NOT seen the original Bond photos and I have no idea the provenace re the Bond image(s) your using.

Here is the above composite superimposed on a composite of those two photos.

[John Dolva]

John wrote:

A Pleasant surprise:

I was curious to see what the surroundings look like to the above composite.

that's interesting, what frame [using the Z-film as reference] was the last image in your sequence again? I think I asked that someplace else

The Muchmore film

one, two, three.... thank you, Gary. LOL Don't forget the NIX film

and the bond photos 6 & 7 are taken almost from the exact same spot!

I'd be more comfortable saying: near the same POV, not spot -- I have NOT seen the original Bond photos and I have no idea the provenace re the Bond image(s) your using.

Here is the above composite superimposed on a composite of those two photos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David, I already answered that question.

[David G. Healy]

John Dolva wrote:

David, I'm surprised. No, it's a very dirty copy. When one puts two images that contain largely the same information on top of each other that which is the same will add and that which is different subtract. As the 'dirt' is different on all frames it quite logically disappears.

don't be

Now that I'm on the subject, this principle is useful in sifting through the 'smoke' in many fields. I hesitate to add this part, because I had hoped to demonstrate it vividly shortly, but the 'reverse' is also true. That which is the same is sometimes exactly that part not to look at. I call this for want of a better word 'difference analysis'.

kinda like that  *difference* compositing filter in Photoshop, right?

The above technique will highlight that which stays the same. In turn it not only highlights that which is different but also that which is the inverse of same : change.

perhaps a future project will could be; ALL DPlaza motion films, isolating the LIMO, no need to be concerned with any other area -- referencing all non Z-film frames back to the Z-film...

Hate to see you stop after coming this far.......

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David, I don't know, I don't use photoshop. I don't think I quite understand your project. However I look forward to seeing your results, it sounds interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't worry about it John - if you don't use Photoshop as your image editing software, what flavor software do you use...

As to the project -- I was hoping you'd run with it, someone was going to do something similar 4 years back, it hasn't materialized -- I think I know why!

[Robin Unger]

Hi John

For refference: the Secret Service agent running up behind the Limo is Clint Hill.

This Webpage may come in handy, it is a shortcut to witness statements.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm

Edited August 11, 2005 by Robin Unger